0.1672
900 319 0030
x

SC Judgement on Karnataka MLAs Disqualification

iasparliament Logo
November 14, 2019

Why in news?

The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in regards with the disqualification of 17 MLAs of the Congress and Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) in Karnataka.

What led to the MLAs disqualification?

  • The 2018 Karnataka State elections produced a hung Assembly - the BJP won 104 seats, Congress 80, and JD-S 37 in the 224-member House.
  • Three seats went to others.
  • The BJP failed to gather a majority after 3 days of Yediyurappa being Chief Minister.
  • The Congress and JD-S leaders forged an alliance soon after the results.
  • They formed the government with H D Kumaraswamy of the JD-S as CM.
  • In July 2019, 14 MLAs from the Congress and 3 from the JD-S quit the Assembly.
  • It was apparently because they were unhappy with the coalition government.
  • The resignations were seen as linked to a BJP attempt to topple the government.
  • The Congress and JD-S thus sought the MLAs’ disqualification, and a bar on their contesting elections.
  • As the 17 rebels stayed away from the Assembly, the Congress-JD-S government collapsed during a trust vote on July 23.
  • This paved the way for the BJP to stake claim to form a new government under Yediyurappa on July 26.
  • In the interim, the 17 MLAs were disqualified from the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly by the then Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar on July 25 and 28 2019 under the anti-defection law.
  • They were barred from contesting elections during the entire tenure of the current Assembly (which is until 2023).
  • The MLAs subsequently moved the Supreme Court asking that the Speaker’s orders be quashed.
  • The Congress and JD-S too approached the court, seeking enforcement of the disqualifications.

What are the Court’s ruling and observations?

  • The Court upheld the disqualification of 17 dissident Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) MLAs by Karnataka Assembly Speaker under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law).
  • It however held that their ouster is no bar from contesting repolls.
  • Contesting Polls - Neither under the Constitution nor under the statutory scheme would disqualification under Tenth Schedule operate as a bar for contesting re-elections.
  • The court said Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not contemplate such disqualification.
  • Disqualification - In the light of the existing constitutional mandate, the Speaker is not empowered to disqualify any member till the end of the term.
  • However, a member disqualified under the 10th Schedule shall be subjected to sanctions provided under Articles 75(1B), 164(1B) and 361B of Constitution.
  • These provide for a bar from being appointed as a Minister or from holding any remunerative political post.
  • This applies from the date of disqualification till the date on which the term of his/her office would expire or if he/she is re-elected to the legislature, whichever is earlier.
  • Right to resign - The court upheld the MLAs’ submission that they had a right to resign.
  • A member may choose to resign for a variety of reasons and the reasons may be good or bad but it is his/her sole prerogative to resign.
  • An elected member cannot be compelled to continue his/her office if he/she chooses to resign.
  • The Court held that the Speaker’s enquiry on a resignation should be confined to whether it was a voluntary and genuine act.
  • The Speaker had the discretion to reject a resignation but the decision should be based on “objective material” and not just ipse dixit (an assertion).
  • Procedure - The MLAs contented that the Speaker did not give them reasonable time to defend themselves before disqualifying them.
  • To this, the Court said that this would depend on the “unique facts and circumstances” of each case.
  • However, the Speaker could not cut short the hearing period.
  • The Speaker should give sufficient opportunity to a member before deciding a disqualification proceeding.
  • They should ordinarily follow the time limit prescribed in the Rules of the Legislature.

What grounds are Speaker’s decision reviewed on?

  • The court said, “The Speaker, being a constitutional functionary, is generally presumed to have adjudicated with the highest traditions of constitutionalism.”
  • It was for this very reason that the Constitution has limited the powers of the court to judicially review the Speaker’s order under the 10th Schedule.
  • The Court held that an order of the Speaker under the 10th Schedule could be subject to judicial review only on four grounds:
    1. mala fide
    2. perversity
    3. violation of the constitutional mandate
    4. order passed in violation of natural justice
  • The court rejected the MLAs’ contention that their disqualification was invalid as they had tendered their resignations.
  • But, it said the act that led to their disqualification preceded their offer of resignation.

What impact does the ruling has?

  • The court has paved the way for the ousted Janata Dal (S) and Congress MLAs to contest the coming by-polls in December 2019.
  • They may also reap the benefits of their crossover by getting a ticket from the ruling BJP.
  • Significantly, the verdict expresses concern to the fact that Speakers sometimes tend not to be neutral.
  • It makes note that change of loyalty for the lure of office continues despite the anti-defection law.
  • Identifying its weak aspects and strengthening the law may be the solution.

 

Source: Indian Express, The Hindu

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme